This case was filed in 2002 by the American Council of the Blind, challenging the U.S. Treasury Department's failure to make paper money that is independently usable by persons who are blind or visually impaired. On December 1, 2006, the District Court for the District of Columbia (James Robertson, ...
read more >

This case was filed in 2002 by the American Council of the Blind, challenging the U.S. Treasury Department's failure to make paper money that is independently usable by persons who are blind or visually impaired. On December 1, 2006, the District Court for the District of Columbia (James Robertson, J.) held that the U.S. Treasury Department had failed to design, produce and issue paper currency that is readily distinguishable to blind and visually impaired people, violating §504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

The government appealed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed Judge Robertson's decision and sent the case back to him for a ruling on the request for an injunction.

On October 3, 2008, Judge Robertson ordered the government to come up with a plan to make paper money readily accessible. The judge did not give any specific instructions how to accomplish this, but ordered that appropriate changes in each type of paper bill (except the $1 bill, which is specially protected) must be made before any redesign of that denomination is approved by the Secretary of the Treasury.

Over the next several years, the parties filed numerous status reports. The reports indicated that progress was ongoing as the government developed the technology necessary to create accessible bills that would also be secure against counterfeiting risks. On June 6, 2016, the plaintiffs moved to modify the court's 2008 order to adjust the timeframe so that all bills would be made accessible by the end of 2026. The court denied the order on Jan. 6, 2017, holding that delays in making accessible bills did not constitute a significant public interest problem to warrant the court imposing a timeframe where it had intentionally avoided one in in 2008. The plaintiffs appealed this order on Jan. 23, 2017.